"What makes general de armee an army game?" Topic

So I bought it, after several questions on how this game was different then say general de brigade from the same author. And I was told this was more for full armies.

Yet having now read half the rules, they seem pretty standard tactical rules. Except for the ACD command and no actual figure scale, it seems to play quite similar to general de brigade.

So what exactly do the rules do to make it better at big army battles then GdB(which also works perfectly fine for big battles if you got enough players)

It seems the standard player will lead a division just like general de brigade, and almost all other games in this style.

Is there some system later in the book that makes it easier to have big battles?

The new scenario book on the 1815 campaign has a scenario for Ligney and Waterloo with each having about 20 infantry bn per side. That should be a clue as to the size of games it is designed for.

We're looking to streamline parts for our use, since 4 corps plus cav game would be a regular Sunday affair.

But you could easily have 20 battalions or much more in any divisional rules if you have enough players.

Any divisional game can be played army level by giving each player a corps or 1-2 divisions to control.
I don't see how this is MORE suited for corps or army level games then general de brigade or from republic to empire, or black powder etc.

I agree with you. When I say corps, I'm talking 30-40 bn per player, plus attached cav.
Not sure if the title was chosen to indicate a larger scale or just to delineate between two sets by the same author.
I haven't played GdB, but the scenarios I've seen are about the same size as the GdA ones.
Have you looked at ESR (Et sans résultat!). You lose a little resolution. Units are still bn. but you don't worry about col/ln/sq. Again, I haven't played them, but do own them.

the bigger issue is if you dont adhere to the minimum game size in GdA – the Adc system breaks down because there aren't enough of them.

I think the ideal name would have been General de Division but I believe that title is already commercially used. I have studied many reports and watched all the videos on General D'Armee and I could not get past the gamey ADC concept.

There are many differences from G de B that speed up the play (the concept de jour) but they sometimes detract from the granularity of a tactical Napoleonic game IMHO. Nonetheless, I quite understand how the latter is popular.

So, I am happily sticking with General de Brigade.

The sweet spot for GdA is 5 or 6 brigades per player. So General de Corp would be closer.
For me these are the best Napoleonic rules on the market at the moment. I would fully agree with Ironduke the GdB gives a more granular battalion game. With GdA you should be thinking about brigades and regiments.
The ADCs are over emphasised to my mind. They can enhance and focus your actions but your army can work without any ADCs. If your battle is 3 brigades or less GdB is probably a better game but above that go for GdA.

As I said, I haven't finished the rules, but have people tried to mix the two?

I think Kevin Major hit most of the points. Our group prefers GdA as it does play faster, sure you don't get the Btn granularity but as a commander of 5 brigades you should not be concerning your self with that granularity.

Chris

I have never played GdB but have played a fair amount of GdA.

The ADC's had a significant amount of uncertainty to your battle plan. It is critical that they are played well especially to set up charges etc. I believe there is no such mechanism in GdB.

The game is aimed at Division + up to Corps. I believe GdB is at the Division level. You need at least 4 Brigades per side to get a good game from GdA. But like GdB the tactical element is the battalion.

I agree that the mechanisms are probably more streamlined so less granular as they say.

I have played about 6-7 Napoleonic rulesets in the last 12 years, GdA is by far the easiest to pick up and play and gives a very exciting and realistic game.

a scenario for Ligny and Waterloo with each having about 20 infantry bn per side.

How ridiculous. There were many more than 20 battalions a side in those battles!!

MajorB, The scenarios do not depict the entire battles.

IronDuke – GdA is a great game – worth at least one play test

I'm still sticking with GdB even for large battles